Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 33
Filter
1.
Sex Transm Infect ; 2022 Aug 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2314057

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To investigate how differential access to key interventions to reduce STIs, HIV and their sequelae changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: British participants (18-59 years) completed a cross-sectional web survey 1 year (March-April 2021) after the initial lockdown in Britain. Quota-based sampling and weighting resulted in a quasi-representative population sample. We compared Natsal-COVID data with Natsal-3, a household-based probability sample cross-sectional survey (16-74 years) conducted in 2010-2012. Reported unmet need for condoms because of the pandemic and uptake of chlamydia testing/HIV testing/cervical cancer screening were analysed among sexually experienced participants (18-44 years) (n=3869, Natsal-COVID; n=8551, Natsal-3). ORs adjusted for age and other potential confounders describe associations with demographic and behavioural factors. RESULTS: In 2021, 6.9% of women and 16.2% of men reported unmet need for condoms because of the pandemic. This was more likely among participants: aged 18-24 years, of black or black British ethnicity, and reporting same-sex sex (past 5 years) or one or more new relationships (past year). Chlamydia and HIV testing were more commonly reported by younger participants, those reporting condomless sex with new sexual partners and men reporting same-sex partners; a very similar distribution to 10 years previously (Natsal-3). However, there were differences during the pandemic, including stronger associations with chlamydia testing for men reporting same-sex partners; with HIV testing for women reporting new sexual partners and with cervical screening among smokers. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests differential access to key primary and secondary STI/HIV prevention interventions continued during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there was not strong evidence that differential access has changed during the pandemic when compared with 2010-2012. While the pandemic might not have exacerbated inequalities in access to primary and secondary prevention, it is clear that large inequalities persisted, typically among those at greatest STI/HIV risk.

2.
PLOS global public health ; 2(6), 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2250530

ABSTRACT

The observed epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in sub-Saharan Africa has varied greatly from that in Europe and the United States, with much lower reported incidence. Population-based studies are needed to estimate true cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 to inform public health interventions. This study estimated SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in four selected states in Nigeria in October 2020. We implemented a two-stage cluster sample household survey in four Nigerian states (Enugu, Gombe, Lagos, and Nasarawa) to estimate age-stratified prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. All individuals in sampled households were eligible for interview, blood draw, and nasal/oropharyngeal swab collection. We additionally tested participants for current/recent malaria infection. Seroprevalence estimates were calculated accounting for the complex survey design. Across all four states, 10,629 (96·5%) of 11,015 interviewed individuals provided blood samples. The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was 25·2% (95% CI 21·8–28·6) in Enugu State, 9·3% (95% CI 7·0–11·5) in Gombe State, 23·3% (95% CI 20·5–26·4) in Lagos State, and 18·0% (95% CI 14·4–21·6) in Nasarawa State. Prevalence of current/recent malaria infection ranged from 2·8% in Lagos to 45·8% in Gombe and was not significantly related to SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence. The prevalence of active SARS-CoV-2 infection in the four states during the survey period was 0·2% (95% CI 0·1–0·4). Approximately eight months after the first reported COVID-19 case in Nigeria, seroprevalence indicated infection levels 194 times higher than the 24,198 officially reported COVID-19 cases across the four states;however, most of the population remained susceptible to COVID-19 in October 2020.

3.
Trials ; 24(1): 218, 2023 Mar 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2266553

ABSTRACT

The "Diabetes: Community-led Awareness, Response and Evaluation" (D:Clare) trial aims to scale up and replicate an evidence-based participatory learning and action cycle intervention in Bangladesh, to inform policy on population-level T2DM prevention and control.The trial was originally designed as a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial, with the interventions running from March 2020 to September 2022. Twelve clusters were randomly allocated (1:1) to implement the intervention at months 1 or 12 in two steps, and evaluated through three cross-sectional surveys at months 1, 12 and 24. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we suspended project activities on the 20th of March 2020. As a result of the changed risk landscape and the delays introduced by the COVID-19 pandemic, we changed from the stepped-wedge design to a wait-list parallel arm cluster RCT (cRCT) with baseline data. We had four key reasons for eventually agreeing to change designs: equipoise, temporal bias in exposure and outcomes, loss of power and time and funding considerations.Trial registration ISRCTN42219712 . Registered on 31 October 2019.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Humans , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/diagnosis , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/prevention & control , Bangladesh/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Pandemics , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
4.
BMJ Open ; 13(2): e064709, 2023 02 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2279977

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Despite evidence that iron and folic acid (IFA) supplements can improve anaemia in pregnant women, uptake in Nepal is suboptimal. We hypothesised that providing virtual counselling twice in mid-pregnancy, would increase compliance to IFA tablets during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with antenatal care (ANC alone. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This non-blinded individually randomised controlled trial in the plains of Nepal has two study arms: (1) control: routine ANC; and (2) 'Virtual' antenatal counselling plus routine ANC. Pregnant women are eligible to enrol if they are married, aged 13-49 years, able to respond to questions, 12-28 weeks' gestation, and plan to reside in Nepal for the next 5 weeks. The intervention comprises two virtual counselling sessions facilitated by auxiliary nurse midwives at least 2 weeks apart in mid-pregnancy. Virtual counselling uses a dialogical problem-solving approach with pregnant women and their families. We randomised 150 pregnant women to each arm, stratifying by primigravida/multigravida and IFA consumption at baseline, providing 80% power to detect a 15% absolute difference in primary outcome assuming 67% prevalence in control arm and 10% loss-to-follow-up. Outcomes are measured 49-70 days after enrolment, or up to delivery otherwise. PRIMARY OUTCOME: consumption of IFA on at least 80% of the previous 14 days. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: dietary diversity, consumption of intervention-promoted foods, practicing ways to enhance bioavailability and knowledge of iron-rich foods. Our mixed-methods process evaluation explores acceptability, fidelity, feasibility, coverage (equity and reach), sustainability and pathways to impact. We estimate costs and cost-effectiveness of the intervention from a provider perspective. Primary analysis is by intention-to-treat, using logistic regression. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We obtained ethical approval from Nepal Health Research Council (570/2021) and UCL ethics committee (14301/001). We will disseminate findings in peer-reviewed journal articles and by engaging policymakers in Nepal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17842200.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Female , Pregnancy , Humans , Nepal , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Prenatal Care/methods , Folic Acid/therapeutic use , Dietary Supplements , Iron/therapeutic use , Diet , Gravidity , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
5.
Sex Transm Infect ; 2023 Mar 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2272358

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To assess sexual behaviour, and sexual and reproductive health (SRH) outcomes, after 1 year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Britain. METHODS: 6658 participants aged 18-59 and resident in Britain completed a cross-sectional web-panel survey (Natsal-COVID-Wave 2, March-April 2021), 1 year after the first lockdown. Natsal-COVID-2 follows the Natsal-COVID-Wave 1 survey (July-August 2020) which captured impacts in the initial months. Quota-based sampling and weighting resulted in a quasi-representative population sample. Data were contextualised with reference to the most recent probability sample population data (Natsal-3; collected 2010-12; 15 162 participants aged 16-74) and national surveillance data on recorded sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing, conceptions, and abortions in England/Wales (2010-2020). The main outcomes were: sexual behaviour; SRH service use; pregnancy, abortion and fertility management; sexual dissatisfaction, distress and difficulties. RESULTS: In the year from the first lockdown, over two-thirds of participants reported one or more sexual partners (women 71.8%; men 69.9%), while fewer than 20.0% reported a new partner (women 10.4%; men 16.8%). Median occasions of sex per month was two. Compared with 2010-12 (Natsal-3), we found less sexual risk behaviour (lower reporting of multiple partners, new partners, and new condomless partners), including among younger participants and those reporting same-sex behaviour. One in 10 women reported a pregnancy; pregnancies were fewer than in 2010-12 and less likely to be scored as unplanned. 19.3% of women and 22.8% of men were distressed or worried about their sex life, significantly more than in 2010-12. Compared with surveillance trends from 2010 to 2019, we found lower than expected use of STI-related services and HIV testing, lower levels of chlamydia testing, and fewer conceptions and abortions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are consistent with significant changes in sexual behaviour, SRH, and service uptake in the year following the first lockdown in Britain. These data are foundational to SRH recovery and policy planning.

6.
BMJ Sex Reprod Health ; 2023 Mar 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2251523

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Contraceptive services were significantly disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic in Britain. We investigated contraception-related health inequalities in the first year of the pandemic. METHODS: Natsal-COVID Wave 2 surveyed 6658 adults aged 18-59 years between March and April 2021, using quotas and weighting to achieve quasi-representativeness. Our analysis included sexually active participants aged 18-44 years, described as female at birth. We analysed contraception use, contraceptive switching due to the pandemic, contraceptive service access, and pregnancy plannedness. RESULTS: Of 1488 participants, 1619 were at risk of unplanned pregnancy, of whom 54.1% (51.0%-57.1%) reported routinely using effective contraception in the past year. Among all participants, 14.3% (12.5%-16.3%) reported switching or stopping contraception due to the pandemic. 3.2% (2.0%-5.1%) of those using effective methods pre-pandemic switched to less effective methods, while 3.8% (2.5%-5.9%) stopped. 29.3% (26.9%-31.8%) of at-risk participants reported seeking contraceptive services, of whom 16.4% (13.0%-20.4%) reported difficulty accessing services. Clinic closures and cancelled appointments were commonly reported pandemic-related reasons for difficulty accessing services. This unmet need was associated with younger age, diverse sexual identities and anxiety symptoms. Of 199 pregnancies, 6.6% (3.9%-11.1%) scored as 'unplanned'; less planning was associated with younger age, lower social grade and unemployment. CONCLUSIONS: Just under a third of participants sought contraceptive services during the pandemic and most were successful, indicating resilience and adaptability of service delivery. However, one in six reported an unmet need due to the pandemic. COVID-induced inequalities in service access potentially exacerbated existing reproductive health inequalities. These should be addressed in the post-pandemic period and beyond.

7.
Nat Aging ; 3(1): 93-104, 2023 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2236455

ABSTRACT

Third-dose coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines are being deployed widely but their efficacy has not been assessed adequately in vulnerable older people who exhibit suboptimal responses after primary vaccination series. This observational study, which was carried out by the VIVALDI study based in England, looked at spike-specific immune responses in 341 staff and residents in long-term care facilities who received an mRNA vaccine following dual primary series vaccination with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. Third-dose vaccination strongly increased antibody responses with preferential relative enhancement in older people and was required to elicit neutralization of Omicron. Cellular immune responses were also enhanced with strong cross-reactive recognition of Omicron. However, antibody titers fell 21-78% within 100 d after vaccine and 27% of participants developed a breakthrough Omicron infection. These findings reveal strong immunogenicity of a third vaccine in one of the most vulnerable population groups and endorse an approach for widespread delivery across this population. Ongoing assessment will be required to determine the stability of immune protection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Humans , Aged , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , Antibodies , COVID-19 Vaccines , Breakthrough Infections
8.
J Sex Res ; : 1-12, 2022 Mar 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2233347

ABSTRACT

Intimate relationships are ubiquitous and exert a strong influence on health. Widespread disruption to them may impact wellbeing at a population level. We investigated the extent to which the first COVID-19 lockdown (March 2020) affected steady relationships in Britain. In total, 6,654 participants aged 18-59 years completed a web-panel survey (July-August 2020). Quasi-representativeness was achieved via quota sampling and weighting. We explored changes in sex life and relationship quality among participants in steady relationships (n = 4,271) by age, gender, and cohabitation status, and examined factors associated with deterioration to a lower-quality relationship. A total of 64.2% of participants were in a steady relationship (of whom 88.9% were cohabiting). A total of 22.1% perceived no change in their sex-life quality, and 59.5% no change in their relationship quality. Among those perceiving change, sex-life quality was more commonly reported to decrease and relationship quality to improve. There was significant variation by age; less often by gender or cohabitation. Overall, 10.6% reported sexual difficulties that started/worsened during lockdown. In total, 6.9% reported deterioration to a "lower quality" relationship, more commonly those: aged 18-24 and aged 35-44; not living with partner (women only); and reporting depression/anxiety and decrease in sex-life quality. In conclusion, intimate relationship quality is yet another way in which COVID-19 has led to divergence in experience.

9.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 10(1): ofac694, 2023 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2222683

ABSTRACT

Background: Successive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants have caused severe disease in long-term care facility (LTCF) residents. Primary vaccination provides strong short-term protection, but data are limited on duration of protection following booster vaccines, particularly against the Omicron variant. We investigated the effectiveness of booster vaccination against infections, hospitalizations, and deaths among LTCF residents and staff in England. Methods: We included residents and staff of LTCFs within the VIVALDI study (ISRCTN 14447421) who underwent routine, asymptomatic testing (December 12, 2021-March 31, 2022). Cox regression was used to estimate relative hazards of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and associated hospitalization and death at 0-13, 14-48, 49-83, 84-111, 112-139, and 140+ days after dose 3 of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination compared with 2 doses (after 84+ days), stratified by previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and adjusting for age, sex, LTCF capacity, and local SARS-CoV-2 incidence. Results: A total of 14 175 residents and 19 793 staff were included. In residents without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, infection risk was reduced 0-111 days after the first booster, but no protection was apparent after 112 days. Additional protection following booster vaccination waned but was still present at 140+ days for COVID-associated hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.63) and death (aHR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.20-1.27). Most residents (64.4%) had received primary course vaccine of AstraZeneca, but this did not impact pre- or postbooster risk. Staff showed a similar pattern of waning booster effectiveness against infection, with few hospitalizations and no deaths. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that booster vaccination provided sustained protection against severe outcomes following infection with the Omicron variant, but no protection against infection from 4 months onwards. Ongoing surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 in LTCFs is crucial.

10.
Elife ; 112022 09 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2217486

ABSTRACT

Background: Viral sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 has been used for outbreak investigation, but there is limited evidence supporting routine use for infection prevention and control (IPC) within hospital settings. Methods: We conducted a prospective non-randomised trial of sequencing at 14 acute UK hospital trusts. Sites each had a 4-week baseline data collection period, followed by intervention periods comprising 8 weeks of 'rapid' (<48 hr) and 4 weeks of 'longer-turnaround' (5-10 days) sequencing using a sequence reporting tool (SRT). Data were collected on all hospital-onset COVID-19 infections (HOCIs; detected ≥48 hr from admission). The impact of the sequencing intervention on IPC knowledge and actions, and on the incidence of probable/definite hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), was evaluated. Results: A total of 2170 HOCI cases were recorded from October 2020 to April 2021, corresponding to a period of extreme strain on the health service, with sequence reports returned for 650/1320 (49.2%) during intervention phases. We did not detect a statistically significant change in weekly incidence of HAIs in longer-turnaround (incidence rate ratio 1.60, 95% CI 0.85-3.01; p=0.14) or rapid (0.85, 0.48-1.50; p=0.54) intervention phases compared to baseline phase. However, IPC practice was changed in 7.8 and 7.4% of all HOCI cases in rapid and longer-turnaround phases, respectively, and 17.2 and 11.6% of cases where the report was returned. In a 'per-protocol' sensitivity analysis, there was an impact on IPC actions in 20.7% of HOCI cases when the SRT report was returned within 5 days. Capacity to respond effectively to insights from sequencing was breached in most sites by the volume of cases and limited resources. Conclusions: While we did not demonstrate a direct impact of sequencing on the incidence of nosocomial transmission, our results suggest that sequencing can inform IPC response to HOCIs, particularly when returned within 5 days. Funding: COG-UK is supported by funding from the Medical Research Council (MRC) part of UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) (grant code: MC_PC_19027), and Genome Research Limited, operating as the Wellcome Sanger Institute. Clinical trial number: NCT04405934.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Prospective Studies , Infection Control/methods , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Hospitals
11.
Nat Aging ; 2(6): 536-547, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2186114

ABSTRACT

We studied humoral and cellular immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 152 long-term care facility staff and 124 residents over a prospective 4-month period shortly after the first wave of infection in England. We show that residents of long-term care facilities developed high and stable levels of antibodies against spike protein and receptor-binding domain. Nucleocapsid-specific responses were also elevated but waned over time. Antibodies showed stable and equivalent levels of functional inhibition against spike-angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 binding in all age groups with comparable activity against viral variants of concern. SARS-CoV-2 seropositive donors showed high levels of antibodies to other beta-coronaviruses but serostatus did not impact humoral immunity to influenza or other respiratory syncytial viruses. SARS-CoV-2-specific cellular responses were similar across all ages but virus-specific populations showed elevated levels of activation in older donors. Thus, survivors of SARS-CoV-2 infection show a robust and stable immunity against the virus that does not negatively impact responses to other seasonal viruses.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza Vaccines , Humans , Aged , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Long-Term Care , Prospective Studies , Nursing Homes , Antibodies , Immunity, Cellular
12.
SSM Popul Health ; 21: 101330, 2023 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2165872

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To evaluate whether and how community youth teams facilitating participatory adolescent groups, youth leadership and livelihood promotion improved school attendance, dietary diversity, and mental health among adolescent girls in rural India. Design: A parallel group, two-arm, superiority, cluster-randomised controlled trial with an embedded process evaluation. Setting intervention and participants: 38 clusters (19 intervention, 19 control) in West Singhbhum district in Jharkhand, India. The intervention included participatory adolescent groups and youth leadership for boys and girls aged 10-19 (intervention clusters only), and family-based livelihood promotion (intervention and control clusters) between June 2017 and March 2020. We surveyed 3324 adolescent girls aged 10-19 in 38 clusters at baseline, and 1478 in 29 clusters at endline. Four intervention and five control clusters were lost to follow up when the trial was suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Adolescent boys were included in the process evaluation only. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Primary: school attendance, dietary diversity, and mental health; 12 secondary outcomes related to education, empowerment, experiences of violence, and sexual and reproductive health. Results: In intervention vs control clusters, mean dietary diversity score was 4·0 (SD 1·5) vs 3·6 (SD 1·2) (adjDiff 0·34; 95%CI -0·23, 0·93, p = 0·242); mean Brief Problem Monitor-Youth (mental health) score was 12·5 (SD 6·0) vs 11·9 (SD 5·9) (adjDiff 0·02, 95%CI -0·06, 0·13, p = 0·610); and school enrolment rates were 70% vs 63% (adjOR 1·39, 95%CI 0·89, 2·16, p = 0·142). Uptake of school-based entitlements was higher in intervention clusters (adjOR 2·01; 95%CI 1·11, 3·64, p = 0·020). Qualitative data showed that the community youth team had helped adolescents and their parents navigate school bureaucracy, facilitated re-enrolments, and supported access to entitlements. Overall intervention delivery was feasible, but positive impacts were likely undermined by household poverty. Conclusions: Participatory adolescent groups, leadership training and livelihood promotion delivered by a community youth team did not improve adolescent girls' mental health, dietary diversity, or school attendance in rural India, but may have increased uptake of education-related entitlements. Trial registration: ISRCTN17206016.

13.
BMJ Open ; 12(12): e067170, 2022 12 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2161869

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The past decade has seen a rapid increase in the volume and proportion of testing for sexually transmitted infections that are accessed via online postal self-sampling services in the UK. ASSIST (Assessing the impact of online postal self-sampling for sexually transmitted infections on health inequalities, access to care and clinical outcomes in the UK) aims to assess the impact of these services on health inequalities, access to care, and clinical and economic outcomes, and to identify the factors that influence the implementation and sustainability of these services. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: ASSIST is a mixed-methods, realist evaluated, national study with an in-depth focus of three case study areas (Birmingham, London and Sheffield). An impact evaluation, economic evaluation and implementation evaluation will be conducted. Findings from these evaluations will be analysed together to develop programme theories that explain the outcomes. Data collection includes quantitative data (using national, clinic based and online datasets); qualitative interviews with service users, healthcare professionals and key stakeholders; contextual observations and documentary analysis. STATA 17 and NVivo will be used to conduct the quantitative and qualitative analysis, respectively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by South Central - Berkshire Research Ethics Committee (ref: 21/SC/0223). All quantitative data accessed and collected will be anonymous. Participants involved with qualitative interviews will be asked for informed consent, and data collected will be anonymised.Our dissemination strategy has been developed to access and engage key audiences in a timely manner and findings will be disseminated via the study website, social media, in peer-reviewed scientific journals, at research conferences, local meetings and seminars and at a concluding dissemination and networking event for stakeholders.


Subject(s)
Research Design , Sexually Transmitted Diseases , Humans , Health Personnel , Sexually Transmitted Diseases/diagnosis , Health Services Accessibility , United Kingdom
15.
PLOS Glob Public Health ; 2(6): e0000363, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2021480

ABSTRACT

The observed epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in sub-Saharan Africa has varied greatly from that in Europe and the United States, with much lower reported incidence. Population-based studies are needed to estimate true cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 to inform public health interventions. This study estimated SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in four selected states in Nigeria in October 2020. We implemented a two-stage cluster sample household survey in four Nigerian states (Enugu, Gombe, Lagos, and Nasarawa) to estimate age-stratified prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. All individuals in sampled households were eligible for interview, blood draw, and nasal/oropharyngeal swab collection. We additionally tested participants for current/recent malaria infection. Seroprevalence estimates were calculated accounting for the complex survey design. Across all four states, 10,629 (96·5%) of 11,015 interviewed individuals provided blood samples. The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was 25·2% (95% CI 21·8-28·6) in Enugu State, 9·3% (95% CI 7·0-11·5) in Gombe State, 23·3% (95% CI 20·5-26·4) in Lagos State, and 18·0% (95% CI 14·4-21·6) in Nasarawa State. Prevalence of current/recent malaria infection ranged from 2·8% in Lagos to 45·8% in Gombe and was not significantly related to SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence. The prevalence of active SARS-CoV-2 infection in the four states during the survey period was 0·2% (95% CI 0·1-0·4). Approximately eight months after the first reported COVID-19 case in Nigeria, seroprevalence indicated infection levels 194 times higher than the 24,198 officially reported COVID-19 cases across the four states; however, most of the population remained susceptible to COVID-19 in October 2020.

16.
Sexually Transmitted Infections ; 98(Suppl 1):A83, 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-2020313

ABSTRACT

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown restrictions (e.g., only interacting within households) induced personal and relationship stressors, which might create conditions that increase intimate partner violence (IPV). We estimated the prevalence and correlates of experiencing IPV in the first year of the pandemic.MethodWe used data from the Natsal-COVID Wave 2—a web-panel survey undertaken one year after the initial British lockdown from 23 March 2020. Quotas and weighting were used to achieve a quasi-representative sample of the British general population. Participants were asked about fearing a partner, which is a simple and effective way to identify IPV experiences.ResultsIn our sample (n = 6302), 9.0% of women and 8.7% of men reported fearing a partner in the first year of the pandemic—about three-quarters of whom reported this occurring more than once. Sociodemographic characteristics associated with fearing a partner during this period included being younger, having had a same-sex sexual partner in the past five years, and being in a relationship. Fearing a partner reportedly affected most of these participants in multiple aspects of their lives. Controlling for age, women (73.3%) were more likely than men (49.9%) to indicate that fearing a partner made them feel anxious or depressed;men were more likely to report increased substance use (30.8% vs. 18.4%) and affected work/studies (30.0% vs. 20.0%).DiscussionPopulation-level estimates of IPV during the pandemic highlight harmful experiences that occurred alongside other wide-ranging hardships, and the associations presented identify key populations with potential ongoing need.

17.
BMJ Open ; 12(4): e052514, 2022 04 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1962188

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has been a significant cause of mortality in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. The COG-UK Consortium Hospital-Onset COVID-19 Infections (COG-UK HOCI) study aims to evaluate whether the use of rapid whole-genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2, supported by a novel probabilistic reporting methodology, can inform infection prevention and control (IPC) practice within NHS hospital settings. DESIGN: Multicentre, prospective, interventional, superiority study. SETTING: 14 participating NHS hospitals over winter-spring 2020/2021 in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients must be admitted to hospital with first-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive test result >48 hour from time of admission, where COVID-19 diagnosis not suspected on admission. The projected sample size is 2380 patients. INTERVENTION: The intervention is the return of a sequence report, within 48 hours in one phase (rapid local lab processing) and within 5-10 days in a second phase (mimicking central lab), comparing the viral genome from an eligible study participant with others within and outside the hospital site. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes are incidence of Public Health England (PHE)/IPC-defined SARS-CoV-2 hospital-acquired infection during the baseline and two interventional phases, and proportion of hospital-onset cases with genomic evidence of transmission linkage following implementation of the intervention where such linkage was not suspected by initial IPC investigation. Secondary outcomes include incidence of hospital outbreaks, with and without sequencing data; actual and desirable changes to IPC actions; periods of healthcare worker (HCW) absence. Health economic analysis will be conducted to determine cost benefit of the intervention. A process evaluation using qualitative interviews with HCWs will be conducted alongside the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN50212645. Pre-results stage. This manuscript is based on protocol V.6.0. 2 September 2021.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Testing , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Hospitals , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Pandemics/prevention & control , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , State Medicine , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom/epidemiology
18.
Lancet Healthy Longev ; 3(7): e470-e480, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1915225

ABSTRACT

Background: Residents and staff in long-term care facilities have been prioritised for vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, but data on potential waning of vaccine effectiveness and the effect of booster doses in this vulnerable population are scarce. We aimed to evaluate effectiveness of one, two, and three vaccine doses against infection and severe clinical outcomes in staff and residents of long-term care facilities in England over the first year following vaccine roll-out. Methods: The VIVALDI study is a prospective cohort study done in 331 long-term care facilities in England. Residents aged 65 years or older and staff aged 18 years or older were eligible for participation. Participants had routine PCR testing throughout the study period between Dec 8, 2020, and Dec 11, 2021. We retrieved all PCR results and cycle threshold values for PCR-positive samples from routine testing in long-term care facilities, and positive PCR results from clinical testing in hospitals through the UK's COVID-19 Datastore. PCR results were linked to participants using pseudo-identifiers based on individuals' unique UK National Health Service (NHS) numbers, which were also used to retrieve vaccination records from the National Immunisation Management Service, hospitalisation records from NHS England, and deaths data from the Office for National Statistics through the COVID-19 Datastore. In a Cox proportional hazards regression, we estimated vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalisation, and COVID-19-related death after one, two, and three vaccine doses, separately by previous SARS-CoV-2 exposure. This study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN 14447421. Findings: 80 186 residents and staff of long-term care facilities had records available for the study period, of whom 15 518 eligible residents and 19 515 eligible staff were included in the analysis. For residents without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 exposure, vaccine effectiveness decreased from 61·7% (95% CI 35·1 to 77·4) to 22·0% (-14·9 to 47·0) against infection; from 89·0% (70·6 to 95·9) to 56·3% (30·1 to 72·6) against hospitalisation; and from 96·4% (84·3 to 99·2) to 64·4% (36·1 to 80·1) against death, when comparing 14-83 days after dose two and 84 days or more after dose two. For staff without evidence of previous exposure, vaccine effectiveness against infection decreased slightly from 57·9% (43·1 to 68·9) at 14-83 days after dose two to 42·1% (29·9 to 52·2) at 84 days or more after dose two. There were no hospitalisations or deaths among unexposed staff at 14-83 days, but seven hospitalisations (vaccine effectiveness 91·0% [95% CI 74·3 to 96·8]) and one death were observed at 84 days or more after dose two. High vaccine effectiveness was restored following a third vaccine dose, with vaccine effectiveness in unexposed residents of 72·7% (55·8 to 83·1) against infection, 90·1% (80·6 to 95·0) against hospitalisation, and 97·5% (88·1 to 99·5) against death; and vaccine effectiveness in unexposed staff of 78·2% (70·0 to 84·1) against infection and 95·8% (49·9 to 99·6) against hospitalisation. There were no COVID-19-related deaths among unexposed staff after the third vaccine dose. Interpretation: Our findings showed substantial waning of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness against all outcomes in residents of long-term care facilities from 12 weeks after a primary course of ChAdOx1-S or mRNA vaccines. Boosters restored protection, and maximised immunity across all outcomes. These findings show the importance of boosting and the need for ongoing surveillance in this vulnerable cohort. Funding: UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Long-Term Care , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , State Medicine , Vaccine Efficacy
19.
Lancet Healthy Longev ; 3(7): e461-e469, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1915222

ABSTRACT

Background: Older age and frailty are risk factors for poor clinical outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection. As such, COVID-19 vaccination has been prioritised for individuals with these factors, but there is concern that immune responses might be impaired due to age-related immune dysregulation and comorbidity. We aimed to study humoral and cellular responses to COVID-19 vaccines in residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Methods: In this observational cohort study, we assessed antibody and cellular immune responses following COVID-19 vaccination in members of staff and residents at 74 LTCFs across the UK. Staff and residents were eligible for inclusion if it was possible to link them to a pseudo-identifier in the COVID-19 datastore, if they had received two vaccine doses, and if they had given a blood sample 6 days after vaccination at the earliest. There were no comorbidity exclusion criteria. Participants were stratified by age (<65 years or ≥65 years) and infection status (previous SARS-CoV-2 infection [infection-primed group] or SARS-CoV-2 naive [infection-naive group]). Anticoagulated edetic acid (EDTA) blood samples were assessed and humoral and cellular responses were quantified. Findings: Between Dec 11, 2020, and June 27, 2021, blood samples were taken from 220 people younger than 65 years (median age 51 years [IQR 39-61]; 103 [47%] had previously had a SARS-CoV-2 infection) and 268 people aged 65 years or older of LTCFs (median age 87 years [80-92]; 144 [43%] had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection). Samples were taken a median of 82 days (IQR 72-100) after the second vaccination. Antibody responses following dual vaccination were strong and equivalent between participants younger then 65 years and those aged 65 years and older in the infection-primed group (median 125 285 Au/mL [1128 BAU/mL] for <65 year olds vs 157 979 Au/mL [1423 BAU/mL] for ≥65 year olds; p=0·47). The antibody response was reduced by 2·4-times (467 BAU/mL; p≤0·0001) in infection-naive people younger than 65 years and 8·1-times (174 BAU/mL; p≤0·0001) in infection-naive residents compared with their infection-primed counterparts. Antibody response was 2·6-times lower in infection-naive residents than in infection-naive people younger than 65 years (p=0·0006). Impaired neutralisation of delta (1.617.2) variant spike binding was also apparent in infection-naive people younger than 65 years and in those aged 65 years and older. Spike-specific T-cell responses were also significantly enhanced in the infection-primed group. Infection-naive people aged 65 years and older (203 SFU per million [IQR 89-374]) had a 52% lower T-cell response compared with infection-naive people younger than 65 years (85 SFU per million [30-206]; p≤0·0001). Post-vaccine spike-specific CD4 T-cell responses displayed single or dual production of IFN-γ and IL-2 were similar across infection status groups, whereas the infection-primed group had an extended functional profile with TNFα and CXCL10 production. Interpretation: These data reveal suboptimal post-vaccine immune responses within infection-naive residents of LTCFs, and they suggest the need for optimisation of immune protection through the use of booster vaccination. Funding: UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Immunity, Cellular , Long-Term Care , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
20.
J Infect Dis ; 226(11): 1877-1881, 2022 Nov 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1883018

ABSTRACT

General population studies have shown strong humoral response following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination with subsequent waning of anti-spike antibody levels. Vaccine-induced immune responses are often attenuated in frail and older populations, but published data are scarce. We measured SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibody levels in long-term care facility residents and staff following a second vaccination dose with Oxford-AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech. Vaccination elicited robust antibody responses in older residents, suggesting comparable levels of vaccine-induced immunity to that in the general population. Antibody levels are higher after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination but fall more rapidly compared to Oxford-AstraZeneca recipients and are enhanced by prior infection in both groups.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Humans , Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , BNT162 Vaccine , Long-Term Care , COVID-19/prevention & control , Antibodies, Viral , England
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL